Valuation reports are inadmissible as substantive evidence in Land Acquisition References unless the authoring expert is examined.

The Claimant’s land, bearing CTS No. 54 (15.5 sq. metres) in Village Hariyali, Mumbai, was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for the construction of a railway overbridge

A Section 4 notification was issued on August 24, 2006, and possession was taken under the urgency provisions of Section 17 on February 12, 2008

On October 16, 2008, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award granting compensation of Rs. 1,62,102/-

Dissatisfied, the Claimant sought a reference under Section 18 for enhancement

During the proceedings, the Claimant remained absent during the final hearing despite repeated notices

The Claimant had produced a valuation report and a municipal license for "Hotel Sanjay" but did not examine the valuer or claim damages for loss of business

1. Whether the Claimant discharged the burden of establishing that the compensation awarded by the SLAO was inadequate and warranted enhancement

2. Whether a valuation report can be treated as substantive evidence in the absence of the testimony of its author

The Court applied Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regarding the procedure for enhancement of compensation

It relied on Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which mandates that oral evidence must be direct, meaning opinion evidence must be proved by the person who holds that opinion

The Court followed the precedent in Chimanlal Hargovindas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona (AIR 1988 SC 1652), establishing that an SLAO’s award is merely an offer, and the burden lies on the claimant to prove entitlement to higher compensation through cogent evidence, as a reference is not an appeal

The Court reasoned that in a Section 18 reference, the claimant carries the burden of proof to demonstrate that the SLAO's award is insufficient

In this instance, the Claimant only examined himself and failed to produce independent witnesses or comparable sale instances

While a valuation report by M/s. Atts Associates was submitted, the Court held it lacked evidentiary value because the valuer was not called as a witness to prove the report, violating Section 60 of the Evidence Act

Regarding the commercial use of the land, the Court noted that the Claimant explicitly admitted in cross-examination that he was not seeking compensation for loss of business

Consequently, since the Claimant failed to provide any substantive evidence to establish a higher market value than that determined by the SLAO, the court found no grounds for enhancement

The Court held that the Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proof required to justify an enhancement of the compensation amount

No order as to costs was made